1/32 Revell Me 262-A (New Tool) July 2019 Release

[ringleheim]

Yep, you can definitely see the fingerprint of rivets on the NASM aircraft and also the one in Munich at the Deutsches Museum.  

 

I just finished making the Trumpeter Me-262 A1a kit and also the new Revell 2 seater.

 

Both are what I would describe as "lousy" model kits, just in different ways.

 

There is so much flash on the Revell kit it actually starts to re-shape some of the parts, such that some things didn't fit until I realized a feature on the part was just a giant growth of flash and not supposed to be there.  Shockingly bad for such a new kit!  How do they do it? 

 

Then you have the issue of the gun bay doors.  Revell only gives you 1 piece represented the whole thing covered up.  If you want to display 1 or both doors open, you must surgically remove them from the piece, delicately retain the central section that sits in a fixed position above the guns, and then figure out some clever way to glue the doors to that piece, as there is no mechanical way for that to happen based on the design of the kit.

 

Revell is such garbage...but you know what you are getting when you buy it.

 

The Trumpeter isn't a lot better, which surprised me as that kit in particular gets good reviews as far as Trumpetyer kits are concerned.

 

As just one example you glue the various parts that form the engine nacelle together and there are open gaps all over the place, as simple shuts and joins simply don't happen because lines which are supposed to be straight and flat are not.

 

I swear to God, most 1/32 aircraft models pretty much suck! 

 

 

 

 

[nmayhew]

I kind of understand your frustration - being similarly ‘challenged’ by Revell’s Spitfire at present

 

the solution is, however, pretty simple: build Tamiya mega kits, hasegawa 109s or Wingnut Wings if you are man enough for the rigging!

 

and now back to our regular programming...

[D.B. Andrus]

1 hour ago, ringleheim said:

Yep, you can definitely see the fingerprint of rivets on the NASM aircraft and also the one in Munich at the Deutsches Museum.  

 

I just finished making the Trumpeter Me-262 A1a kit and also the new Revell 2 seater.

 

Both are what I would describe as "lousy" model kits, just in different ways.

 

There is so much flash on the Revell kit it actually starts to re-shape some of the parts, such that some things didn't fit until I realized a feature on the part was just a giant growth of flash and not supposed to be there.  Shockingly bad for such a new kit!  How do they do it? 

 

Then you have the issue of the gun bay doors.  Revell only gives you 1 piece represented the whole thing covered up.  If you want to display 1 or both doors open, you must surgically remove them from the piece, delicately retain the central section that sits in a fixed position above the guns, and then figure out some clever way to glue the doors to that piece, as there is no mechanical way for that to happen based on the design of the kit.

 

Revell is such garbage...but you know what you are getting when you buy it.

 

The Trumpeter isn't a lot better, which surprised me as that kit in particular gets good reviews as far as Trumpetyer kits are concerned.

 

As just one example you glue the various parts that form the engine nacelle together and there are open gaps all over the place, as simple shuts and joins simply don't happen because lines which are supposed to be straight and flat are not.

 

I swear to God, most 1/32 aircraft models pretty much suck! 

 

 

 

 

 

 Having a bad day?

[Radub]

8 hours ago, Jennings Heilig said:

If you read about period Me262s, it’s very clear that they went all out to make them as baby-butt smooth as possible.  Yes, on restorations you can see evidence of the rivets *from very close up*, but stand 15-50’ away and see how much evidence you see. Then figure a brand new airplane just off the assembly line, where every effort was made to eliminate all trace of them.  Your model should be as smooth as a baby’s butt.

 

 

Hmmm, oh no, not the "bad restoration" caveat again.
There is a great book by Brett Green published by Eagle Editions that contains a lot of great photos of the UNRESTORED Me 262  preserved in Camberra. Flush rivets are clearly visible in every photo. I was fortunate enough to get very close to five 262s (OK, two of them were Czech Avias :-) ) and I spent a whole day measuring and photographing the 262 in Deutsches Museum in Munich (which is not a "restoration" as such). All of them feature flush rivets. Granted, they are not as bad a Trumpeter made them, but they are not entirely "invisible" either - on the real thing they are "faint circles" rather than "holes".  In contrast, the Ar 234 in the Smithsonian is puttied, polished and smoothed to an amazing degree. The wings and fuselage of the Arado feature no panel lines or rivets whereas in some other places (engine cowls) you can still see rivets, some of them not even "flush". When you compare the Me 262 to the Ar 234 it becomes immediately evident that the the 262 is rather "agricultural" in construction. :-) 

Radu 

 

[Thunderbolt]

1 hour ago, Radub said:

 

 

Hmmm, oh no, not the "bad restoration" caveat again.
There is a great book by Brett Green published by Eagle Editions that contains a lot of great photos of the UNRESTORED Me 262  preserved in Camberra. Flush rivets are clearly visible in every photo. I was fortunate enough to get very close to five 262s (OK, two of them were Czech Avias :-) ) and I spent a whole day measuring and photographing the 262 in Deutsches Museum in Munich (which is not a "restoration" as such). All of them feature flush rivets. Granted, they are not as bad a Trumpeter made them, but they are not entirely "invisible" either - on the real thing they are "faint circles" rather than "holes".  In contrast, the Ar 234 in the Smithsonian is puttied, polished and smoothed to an amazing degree. The wings and fuselage of the Arado feature no panel lines or rivets whereas in some other places (engine cowls) you can still see rivets, some of them not even "flush". When you compare the Me 262 to the Ar 234 it becomes immediately evident that the the 262 is rather "agricultural" in construction. :-) 

Radu 

 

Hmm, or decidedly deciduous?

[Thunnus]

I am interested in seeing the Revell 262A kit.  I just built the Trumpeter 262 kit and thought it was a good one.  Not great but pretty good.  The main issue I had was getting the nose panel pieces to fit.  The engine nacelles went together well although I elected not to include the engine internals.

 

[RaceFuel]

22 hours ago, ringleheim said:

 

Revell is such garbage...but you know what you are getting when you buy it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've built their new 1/32 P-51D Early and FW-190A8 and both were outstanding kits

So it's hardly an absolute 

[Darren Howie]

The JG7 history book is very clear discussing the poor condition of new build 262’s from the factory.

This imaginative fiction of slave factory workers who where mistreated, underfed spending hours polishing out rivets is a figment of imagination.

262’s where poorly manufactured, poorly delivered and took days to weeks of work to fix issues which workers mostly all captives had done.

The aircraft originating in the test program was one thing...aircraft built by slave labour thats another..

[Dave Williams]

This episode of rivet talk has been fascinating.  Never would have thought a simple thread asking about an upcoming kit would have the term slave labour in it.

[Troy Molitor]

Thank you Revell.  Thank you for having the courage in doing another iconic 1:32 scale WWII aircraft.   F6F, P-38,  Beaufighter ,P-51B,  Me 110G-4.  

 

We can complain sometimes, but it’s still fantastic to see new/old releases in 1:32.  

 

 

[Thunderbolt]

On 4/25/2019 at 8:03 PM, Dave Williams said:

This episode of rivet talk has been fascinating.  Never would have thought a simple thread asking about an upcoming kit would have the term slave labour in it.

cleaning the flash off this next 262A won't be that bad?

[Thunderbolt]

1 hour ago, ScanmanDan said:

 

 

And there's the rub.  

 

Ya see Johns neato Me262 above. I'd jump through a whole lot of flaming hoops to be able to build a kit that looks even halfway as beautiful as that one.  I have built the old Hasegawa kit and I'm pretty darn happy with the results, even if it's a pale shadow of John's.  Neither one looks exactly like a real in service Me262 and they never will.  That's because they are scale models of the real thing.  Totems or artistic impressions of the real thing.  NOT miniaturised examples of the real thing.  If you want to chase some self defined perfection, great, I wish you well.  I really do but please stop going on about how this or that company 'got it wrong'.  In Trumpeter's case they gave the market exactly what it wanted.  Modellers wanted rivets so they got rivets.  If you don't like em then either don't build it or fill the blinking things in.  Revell will produce their Me262 kit as they see fit.  Some will like it and others won't but this ceaseless whining and proactive complaining is wearing mighty thin.  

 

What would you rather eavesdrop on: 

 

Philadelphia Eagles fans Whining about Nick Foles 

 

or 

 

Modelers talking about the history of a subject and the details of its upcoming release?

 

 

I know my pick. 

Edited April 27, 2019 by thunderbolt1988

[Mebo]

Hello

 

The rivets on the Me262 seems to be the can of worms that come up every time the models of the 262 is discussed.

I would like to drop my 2 cents on the subject.

The 262 is one of my favorite subjects and i have quite a bit of reference material on it.

My gut feeling so far :

There was no doubt a lot of putty put on the 262 before paint, but it did not cover all the rivets.

The more pics i study the more i get the feeling putty was primarily used on the panel joints and secondarily on leading edge rivets (both wings and fuselage).

 

Also there is a wide range of the quality of the putty work.

Please remember the desperate conditions of the production facilities in the closing days of the war in Europe.

Parts for the 262 was produced at a myriad of subcontractors by unskilled labor (forced labor/slaves).

Final assembly took place under far from ideal locations . Sometimes final assembly line was concealed in the forest under open sky.

 

Despite the strict specifications of the RLM the final products varied very much in the terms of quality and surface finish.

 

My conclusion:

 

Have fun modelling. If you like rivets please add some to the 262 especially on the rear fuselage and rear of the wings. :-)

 

 

Cheers

 

Mikkel

 

 

Operational Me262 A-1a  W.Nr 110926 of III./EJG 2 . Lechfeld 1945

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 27, 2019 by Mebo

[Thunderbolt]

6 hours ago, Mebo said:

Hello

 

The rivets on the Me262 seems to be the can of worms that come up every time the models of the 262 is discussed.

I would like to drop my 2 cents on the subject.

The 262 is one of my favorite subjects and i have quite a bit of reference material on it.

My gut feeling so far :

There was no doubt a lot of putty put on the 262 before paint, but it did not cover all the rivets.

The more pics i study the more i get the feeling putty was primarily used on the panel joints and secondarily on leading edge rivets (both wings and fuselage).

 

Also there is a wide range of the quality of the putty work.

Please remember the desperate conditions of the production facilities in the closing days of the war in Europe.

Parts for the 262 was produced at a myriad of subcontractors by unskilled labor (forced labor/slaves).

Final assembly took place under far from ideal locations . Sometimes final assembly line was concealed in the forest under open sky.

 

Despite the strict specifications of the RLM the final products varied very much in the terms of quality and surface finish.

 

My conclusion:

 

Have fun modelling. If you like rivets please add some to the 262 especially on the rear fuselage and rear of the wings. :-)

 

 

Cheers

 

Mikkel

 

 

Operational Me262 A-1a  W.Nr 110926 of III./EJG 2 . Lechfeld 1945

 

 

Totally agree. 

Look forward to posting my 262 build in the summer!

 

 

 

 

[Radub]

16 hours ago, Jennings Heilig said:

 

No, that’s not what I said. But there is a difference between a brand new airplane and a decades old airplane that’s been restored.

 

 

I have no intention to argue. I mentioned unrestored 262s. Get the Eagle Editions book, you won't regret it. If you have it, look at the photos.

Radu